On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 6:44 PM, Denys Vlasenko wrote: > On Saturday 31 January 2009 23:21, Rob Landley wrote: >> Good to know. Possibly I didn't know about that because neither "make >> install" nor "make install_utils" actually put that on the target system, and >> thus I didn't know uClibc had one internally? (I don't know _why_ uClibc has >> one internally, it seems a strange place for it. > > Maybe the reason was "because glibc provides it too".
yes, `getent` is a glibcism only, so putting it in uClibc makes sense >> However, I'd checked and >> busybox hadn't got one. You'll notice I didn't post this message to the >> uClibc list.) > [skip] > > Rob, I don't think being caustic helps. > > Just let Mike and others know that you'd like extra/scripts/getent > in uclibc tree to be installed on "make utils_install", makes sense to me > otherwise people continually reinvent it. what's worse is that the version with uClibc is widely tested (at least in Gentoo) and catches known corner cases / odd / undocumented usage whereas random reinventions by a single person do not -mike _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
